Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
I don’t know the structure of the system. Are the election boards at the precinct, city, county, or state level?
Right now everybody and their dog is rolling their eyes at this issue, claiming that it’s been resolved forever and the “birthers” just won’t accept the answer we’ve been given.
Without everybody realizing that Alvin Onaka just blew out of the water everything everybody has assumed all along, I fear we’d just get eye-rolling.
What intrigues me, is that the eligibility issue could be a “last ditch” procedure that would prevent a re-election (even if there is a majority in popular vote in November and in the electoral college in December 2012).
Officially, the President is elected by the Electoral College in January 2013, and the election is thrown to the House of Representatives if there is an inconclusive result.
Not one Senator stepped forward to sponsor a resolution questioning the electoral college results in January 2001, but there appears to be a stronger case for that should BO prevail in 2012.
This has happened before, and the compromise settled the election in early 1877 in favor of “Ruthefraud Hayes” as a swap for the end of Reconstruction.
Yes. I can just hear my county Supervisor of Elections “We follow the direction of the Secretary of State” or some other such blather.
What? Am I going to have to bring a charge against the local officials?
If it comes to that then let’s do it in every county.
There are election officials at the precinct level, and at every level upwards from that (city, county, district, and state).
There are also volunteers and election employees, many of whom can be reached at one time through the offices of political parties at the County and State level.
The SOS/AG relies on support from all these people to perform the actual labor of conducting an official election. If there are questions from their subordinates on how to do that, the SOS/AG is obligated to respond to their concerns when they are properly addressed and submitted within timeframes sufficiently before an actual election.
No, what you do is have the local officials forward an unresolved “question” to their superiors, requesting an investigation as part of providing “clarification” regarding how to perform their duties.
To get their immediate supervisors to act, you also have them send a copy of the same letter to the state SOS and AG.
This is part of how within a bureaucracy the chain-of-command can be pressured to do its job.
The people in Congress will never touch this. They don’t live among us any more; they have no reason to care what we value. And there are few enough of them that they can be bribed or threatened - if only through their party leadership, which has so far had a nearly 100% success rate.
The local people are our hope. They live right where we live. They sit next to us in church and at the Friday night ball game, and if we know that they are blowing off known crimes we can make things mighty uncomfortable for them. That is where the real power happens, because we’re dealing with real people who have to sustain the relationships where they live.
I am going to contact my county sheriff. I had contacted him earlier with the evidence that the COLB was forged. He said it was interesting but they didn’t have funds to investigate; still, he said he would send it to the County Attorney. I will alert both the sheriff and the county attorney to these imminent crimes and ask them to pass it on up to the DA and/or state attorney general, and stay on them until they pass it along, if only to shut me up.
I don’t know who the elections officials are for the local areas. Is there a way for people to find out who these people are, so we could contact them?
But how does this apply to their duties? What would they be asking to have clarified? Can you give an example for the language that could be used?
To identify local election officials, contact your County government and ask which offices have oversight of local elections. Also contact your local Republican Party, as there’s a good chance some of their officials do double-duty as elections officers within their local precincts.
Don’t bother with the Sheriff. Wrong Department!
Then sit down and condense into a single page letter, in plain English,
1. What it is that you want them to do.
(Such as: Asking their SOS/AG to “clarify” the outstanding questions, through an independent investigation).
2. Why they should take action now.
(Such as: So the “eligibility” question can be resolved in time before the election, and so that questions raised by individual voters regarding eligibility can be answered in an official fashion by local election operatives).
Leave out the fine points of any legal arguments, and instead present a condensed summary of why there is an “eligibility question” with supporting documentation on attached pages.
Instead of “eligibility question”, how about “falsified ID”? Or the like.
Meaning: a question of identification rather than eligibility.
Your thoughts?
If you are writing to Elections officials, you have to refer to matters under their jurisdiction.
“Eligibility verification” is an aspect of the election process, generally under state election code statutes.
“False ID” would be prosecutable by different officials, such as law enforcement agencies under criminal statutes.
Right.
So let’s take that Florida statute in post 408. I like it because it is so clearly worded, unlike some other states.
In Florida elections are conducted under the Department of State. According to that statute (Fla. Stat. § 817.155) any person who uses or makes a false representation or conceals a material fact is guilty of a third degree felony.
I see no exception for the SOS or any election official.
The SOS has been notified by Klayman of the fraudulent ID used by Obama and the impossibility of DNC officials’ ability to certify eligibility. If the SOS accepts and certifies the OCON the SOS would be guilty of felony under § 817.155.
I’ve looked a Florida and other states’ statutes and the SOSs seem pretty well insulated. It seems that they can get away with this felony.
There is nothing they can do to resolve this before the election. It’s too late for that.
Obama would have to present his non-valid BC to a judicial or administrative person or body and his whole trail of documentation would have to be subjected to examination - at this point including the computer transaction logs and microfilms for multiple years at the HDOH because the HDOH itself has issued BC copies for 4 people that have BC#’s on them that they couldn’t have had on the BC’s in 1961. The whole thing would have to be audited. There’s no way that can happen in time for it to be resolved and ballots printed up in time.
I don’t understand what the local elections people would have to clarify. Could you give an example communication? I’m not following the logic here.
In Nebraska the only thing that is required for Obama to be eligible to the ballot is a Certification of Nomination from the DNC. That’s why at least here the only avenue that would make any difference to his getting on the ballot is showing that the OCON is itself unlawful. Which is precisely what we can show. But even at that it would have to be an appeal to the SOS to not accept a document that is known to be perjurious.
I don’t understand how this filters down to the local levels. They’re not in charge of who gets on the ballots. They’re in charge of pencils, voter logs, “I Voted” stickers, etc. Or do they have some authority regarding the content of the ballots?
The SOSs seem pretty well insulated.
Employees can bring an action, law enforcement can bring an action, but average citizen appears to be out of luck.
I find myself repeating the same general suggestions over and over, because your objections give me the impression you don’t understand how “process” can be used within a bureaucracy to pressure oversight officials to launch an investigation.
Energies that are being devoted to stating how you “don’t understand” these simplified instructions, are better devoted to considering just how the goals can be accomplished by means other than those within the strict procedures of the legal system. (Again, consider all the failures in the courts on this matter, Orly Taitz, Terry Lakin, and so on, and realize another approach is required).
Instead of thinking “bottom down,” re-orient your thinking to “grassroots-up” procedures. A simplified letter, signed and submitted by a large number of elections officials to their SOS/AG asking for an investigation, could be enough to get the process moving. This is at least the 3rd time this point has been made in this thread alone. There’s plenty of time, to generate questions in the media in multiple states, as to whether BO should be allowed on the ballot (and if he is, if any votes in his name should be considered valid).
Heheh!
I’ve asked you multiple times for an example of what these elections officials could say. I can’t suggest something that I don’t even understand. We’ve spent 3 years on failing efforts because the technical details of jurisdiction etc have not been thought out.
At this point asking for an investigation isn’t going to do anything. There is no investigation that can be done at this point. We have already been given the answers. The only question left is whether the legal answers we’ve been given are going to make any difference.
Butterdezillion, r99 has explained it several times. If you are asking r99 to provide exact language you can use verbatim, I’d suggest you that discussion to FReepmail. Don’t forget that your posts here are read by the other guys.
Have you had a chance to read Klaymans letter to the 50 state SOS/AGs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.